P SEETHALAKSHMI Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Madurai, removing the petitioner from the post of poojariship of Arulmigu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple, Madurai.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the above said temple was founded and administered by one Valliammal and she left behind two of her sons and they were administered the temple. Subsequently their legal heirs entered into compromise with regard to the performance of poojas and trusteeships. As per the above compromise, the petitioner's husband one late P.Pandian Poosari became the trustee cum poosari and poojas have been divided into ten weeks on rotation basis and it falls on every Thursday evening. As per the above compromise, the petitioner's husband has continued to perform poojas, subsequently, he died on 111.2003. After the death of Pandian Poosari, the petitioner made an application to the first respondent to recognise her as a Hereditary Trustee under Section 54(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The first respondent, by an order dated 04.12003, permitted the petitioner to perform pooja for a week. Challenging the said order, one Maruthupandi who claiming to be the adopted son of the petitioner's husband and claiming right by means of a settlement deed said to have executed by the deceased Pandian Poosari filed an appeal before the Commissioner, HR & CE in A.P.No.19 of 2003. The said appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Joint Commissioner. Challenging the said order, the said Maruthupandi filed W.P.No.14288 of 2004 before the Principal Bench of this Court. This Court allowed the said writ petition setting aside the orders passed by the authorities. However, so far as the sharing of daily collections from the devotees, an interim arrangement has been made by an order dated 107.2006.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.A.No.1590 of 2011 and the said Maruthupandi filed W.A.No.1995 of 2011. The Division Bench of this Court, by a judgment dated 24.06.2013, set aside the order passed in the writ petition and confirmed the orders passed by the authorities namely, the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner and held that the validity of the settlement and adoption deeds has to be decided only by a Civil Court. Till the matter is decided by the competent Civil Court, the orders passed by the HR & CE authorities namely, the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner are directed to be continued. The above said judgment challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a S.L.P. in Appeal (Civil)No.20572 - 20573 of 2011 and the Supreme court dismissed the same confirming the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. By virtue of the order passed by the Division Bench, the petitioner continued to perform poojas. Now, the first respondent removed the petitioner from the post of poosariship on the ground that she has completed 60 years of age and as per Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964 (in short, 'the Service Rules'), the petitioner is not entitled to hold the office and the petitioner should retire from the office after completion of 60 years.